Summerlander wrote:A good samaritan might distract a gang of thugs from kidnapping a poor woman on the streets by simply pretending he is lost and asking for instructions. In the confusion, the woman might escape. But is this the right thing to do? It won't change the way the criminals think and they will still go on doing what they do. In the majority of cases, going against them and letting them know we won't stand for such behaviour is the noblest and most effective option.

Sure, you could be injured or even killed, but those hoodlums would think twice about misbehaving next time if they are reminded that there are risks and consequences. They need to know some people won't just stand there and let it all happen. People are built differently.

Summerlander, the idea you were just talking about involving good samaritans reminded me of a perfect example. In Seattle, Washington USA, there is a man who calls himself Phoenix Jones. He is a self proclaimed superhero who wears his own costume/armor and prevents crime. He acts as a vigilante and is not involved with the police forces. When asked why he chooses to fight crime as a citizen instead of just becoming a police officer he replies by saying something like: If we just let police retaliate against criminals all the time, that's like saying to the criminals "hey, as long as there are no police around, you can do whatever you want!" Phoenix Jones and other superheros are determined to prove that citizens have the right and power to act against criminals.

Summerlander wrote:A good samaritan might distract a gang of thugs from kidnapping a poor woman on the streets by simply pretending he is lost and asking for instructions. In the confusion, the woman might escape. But is this the right thing to do? It won't change the way the criminals think and they will still go on doing what they do. In the majority of cases, going against them and letting them know we won't stand for such behaviour is the noblest and most effective option.

Sure, you could be injured or even killed, but those hoodlums would think twice about misbehaving next time if they are reminded that there are risks and consequences. They need to know some people won't just stand there and let it all happen. People are built differently.

Summerlander, the idea you were just talking about involving good samaritans reminded me of a perfect example. In Seattle, Washington USA, there is a man who calls himself Phoenix Jones. He is a self proclaimed superhero who wears his own costume/armor and prevents crime. He acts as a vigilante and is not involved with the police forces. When asked why he chooses to fight crime as a citizen instead of just becoming a police officer he replies by saying something like: If we just let police retaliate against criminals all the time, that's like saying to the criminals "hey, as long as there are no police around, you can do whatever you want!" Phoenix Jones and other superheros are determined to prove that citizens have the right and power to act against criminals.

Absolutely! A Phoenix Jones will be more effective in situations where we are dealing with people who think it's okay to hurt others if their wants are not met. Being a vigilante is one way of trying to deal with such problems.

Here in London, when we had the riots and criminals wreaked havoc on a large scale, the police had their hands tied and needed help. They allowed vigilantes to stop the mindless rampage even though officially they advised people to stay indoors. A reporter asked a young looter why he was doing what he was doing. His response: "Because I can!"

Gandhi's altruism who not have helped in that situation and would only give bullies a free lunch.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Being a spiritual person doesn't mean you just sit there and allow someone to beat on you.

This Phoenix Jones, who I do commend for his actions btw (assuming he does them from a position of caring for others and not just so he can bust skulls), can be just as spiritual as a Ghandi who chooses passive protesting instead. It's the Intent behind the action that is important, NOT the action itself.

Spirituality doesn't mean you don't defend yourself if required. Ghandi had his way of doing things, but it's not necessarily the ONLY way to do things. One needs to understand Intent... it's something that doesn't help only in this physical reality, but it also a huge help in the non-physical as well.

Can you describe what it is you mean by being a spirtual person, that sets you apart from being a normal person who does good things simply because he feels it is the right thing to do, or simply because it is part of his personality.

"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."

Who mentioned anything about being spiritual anyway, Ryan? It's not about that at all. What we are talking about here is ethics. Pacifism sends out the wrong message to bullies and tyrants with no scruples.

Gandhi's pacifism could detain the British because they cared about reputation and how they looked to the rest of the world - not because they were introspectively touched by his philosophy. Gandhi's killer, for example, who happened to be a Hindu by the way, felt otherwise.

The Nazis, on the other hand, did not care about what they were seen to be doing. Pacifism would not move them let alone the spiritually altruistic.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Jack Reacher wrote:Can you describe what it is you mean by being a spirtual person, that sets you apart from being a normal person who does good things simply because he feels it is the right thing to do, or simply because it is part of his personality.

I use the term "spiritual person"... such as someone who is trying to become a better person and move more towards becoming Love. Becoming Love, not "acting" Loving. One is active, the other is reactive.

I would consider the "normal person" you mention above as being a "spiritual person". It's part of who they are, and/or what they wish to become.

Isn't a lot of this better person idea culturally biased and personally biased, I thought that a lot of the samurai and other types of warriors practiced meditation and a lot of the states we all engage in to get a balanced focused mind with the ultimate objective of defending or attacking in the name of their beliefs or masters. There were considered a spiritually aware, well balanced person and in their own minds they would be a good person as well.

The idea of a better person is a hard one, I would say that to be a better person you could always think about doing great harm rather that great good and if at the deciding moment you just cant do the act then you are a good person and better than you thought as you are fighting the inner demons and winning. That would feel good and the removal of conflict or defining your values with a look inside is better that seeking outside conformation for becoming a better person.

Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

What a perfect example the Samurais are...ahem...were. LOL. Absolutely! I think Ryan there likes to pick his favourite words and give them his own meaning.

I am also confused by the "becoming love" statement... What love? Love of what? Human beings constitute an array of emotions. Are you talking about denial of what you are as a whole, Ryan?

I don't know. It seems to me like it's a path of self-delusion rather than integration and self-acceptance. There's an old saying: know thyself.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Peter wrote:Isn't a lot of this better person idea culturally biased and personally biased, I thought that a lot of the samurai and other types of warriors practiced meditation and a lot of the states we all engage in to get a balanced focused mind with the ultimate objective of defending or attacking in the name of their beliefs or masters. There were considered a spiritually aware, well balanced person and in their own minds they would be a good person as well.

They're all synonyms. Pick and choose whichever feels right for you to use. They all mean the same thing.

The Samurai is a great example... but it's also a "double edged sword" example, as pretty much ANY example you could give is... other than, perhaps a Saint? LoL Someone who meditates, or projects, or does any number of metaphysical pursuits can definitely become a better person, but they could also just as easily be someone who uses fear to grow. I'm sure some Samurai were very humble and spiritual practitioners, but I'm also sure that some Samurai were the exact opposite.

The point is what I said before... it's all based around your "Intent". What's your Intent for giving that wallet back to its owner who dropped it? What's your Intent for holding that door open for that woman with a stroller? What's your Intent for helping a starving man on the sidewalk? What's your Intent for helping to save that child with a hard to cure disease? What's your Intent for being kind & nice?

I wouldn't say it's cultural. However, I would say it's individual and personal. Definitely. Each person has to come to their own conclusions at their own pace.

The idea of a better person is a hard one, I would say that to be a better person you could always think about doing great harm rather that great good and if at the deciding moment you just cant do the act then you are a good person and better than you thought as you are fighting the inner demons and winning. That would feel good and the removal of conflict or defining your values with a look inside is better that seeking outside conformation for becoming a better person.

I'd say that the one who has mastered this concept is the one that wouldn't even consider the notion of "doing great harm". It simply wouldn't be part of their equation.

But then, at this point, I'm just speaking of my opinion. It only holds water with myself.

Summerlander wrote:What a perfect example the Samurais are...ahem...were. LOL. Absolutely! I think Ryan there likes to pick his favourite words and give them his own meaning.

Don't we all?

"The Phase"...

It's kind of the major problem with using a physical language to describe non-physical actions/events. There aren't any words to describe the indescribable, yet we continue to try anyway.

I am also confused by the "becoming love" statement... What love? Love of what? Human beings constitute an array of emotions. Are you talking about denial of what you are as a whole, Ryan?

The exact opposite, in fact. It's not a denial of myself as a whole... it's an *acceptance* of myself and everyone else as a whole, just as I am and just as they are. It's allowing everything to simply be as it is. It's knowing that I'm going to make mistakes along the way, and not holding others accountable to those same mistakes.

I don't know. It seems to me like it's a path of self-delusion rather than integration and self-acceptance. There's an old saying: know thyself.

You may call it whatever you wish to call it. It's entirely your label.

And, please, don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking about something that could or should be... these aren't concepts which I'm trying to convince anyone of either. These are concepts which *I AM*.